Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

2017-11-22 Thread Stewart Bryant
Comments inline: On 20/11/2017 23:36, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote: Hi Adrian, Some comments are provided in-line. Please note that, we all want to let this lingering tread die and follow-up on the next steps noted during this email exchange. I will be happy to have a webEx call and discuss it

Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

2017-11-22 Thread Martin Horneffer
+1 In other words, I confirm from an operators point of view that Robert got good network desing goals quite right. I also perfectly agree with the observations concerning the use of RSVP in the past. BR, Martin Am 21.11.17 um 19:34 schrieb Robert Raszuk: Hi Adrian, I am not going to

Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

2017-11-22 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Wrt architecture - don’t think one has to fit all needs. While some migrate to SR from IP/LDP environment and pretty happy with what they have got today, others come from a heavy traffic engineered one, with per LSP/node counters that are mandatory from a network management prospective(and I

Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

2017-11-22 Thread Robert Raszuk
Jeff, > however if one doesn’t need it, it must not be imposed. Sorry but ASICs do not work that way ... They are not software with options which one can enable or not based on their wish of the day. But if you issue a RFC which complicates things and imposes new hardware requirements those